NFL Draft Neither Stafford or Sanchez belong in top 10 - Page 34

**chiefforlife** · 02-21-2009, 09:39 AM

SOME DON’T VIEW STAFFORD, SANCHEZ AS TOP TEN PICKS
Posted by Mike Florio on February 21, 2009, 8:21 a.m.

Our initial mock draft of the year created plenty of consternation among folks who regard such matters even more importantly that some of our other readers regard their chosen religion.

And, yes, we were trying to make a point with the thing. At this stage, none of the draft experts (i.e., guys who couldn’t get or hold a scouting job with an NFL team and who instead tried to create a niche in the media for the stuff no NFL team would pay them to do) know with any degree of certainty what will occur on draft day.

Apart from the premature nature of prognosticating the events of late April is the fact that every NFL team makes its own decisions for its own reasons, especially in round one. Some draft based on need. Others take the best available player. And when 32 teams have different views on how those available players are ranked from best to worst, the stage is set for all sorts of screwy stuff.

We could have created even more consternation by dropping Georgia quarterback Matt Stafford and USC quarterback Mark Sanchez out of the top ten. In some war rooms, it’s an accurate view of the two players.

Said one source, “In other years those guys aren’t first-round picks. Stafford played well in 2007 but was horrible in 2008. He stunk in all their big games.”

The source specifically pointed to the contests against Alabama, Florida, and Tennessee. Based on the numbers, Stafford was bad against Florida, mediocre against Alabama, and decent against Tennessee.

“He is an average leader at best,” the source opined. “When you put a lot of pressure on him, he pees his pants. Detroit has a new front office, but if they take him then it’s the same old stuff. I guarantee that if he goes in the top 20 he will never play to the level he was drafted.

“What he has is physical skills,” the source added. “He has a strong arm and is athletic but he also has poor instincts and poor decision-making.”

Some might disagree with that assessment. But the point is that, when you’ve got a bunch of different folks assessing the same players, there will be significant variations from person to person.

“As far as Sanchez,” the source said, “he is a more solid choice. He played in a pro style offense. He’s accurate and has a good arm. He’s smart and a leader.

“The negative is he was a one-year starter. Tell me the last time a quarterback who was a one-year starter in college made it big in the NFL? Game time is huge with quarterbacks. Granted, from a money standpoint he made the right decision, but from the standpoint of having a top career, his decision has to be questioned.”

(And, no, our source isn’t Pete Carroll.)

So there you have it. Evidence of how the viewpoints on supposedly top players can diverge dramatically. It makes the process of predicting draft picks even more precarious. So, in the end, we think the final tally of players taken two months from now would presently seem every bit as goofy and unrealistic as some viewed our initial Pre-Combine Mock Draft.

**DeezNutz** · 02-22-2009, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

This is a clear, clear, clear story of a team at #3 that badly wanted the top QB in the draft and a #1 pick team that didn't want that QB. It's a situation where the player in question was a close-to-surefire franchise QB was also evaluated much higher than the second pick in the draft and the second highest QB in that draft. And yet, the compensation was STILL considered too high.

How many times are we going to have to go back and forth on this before you include the fact that Manning said he wouldn't play for SD?

Instead of factoring this into your analysis, you somehow state that SD clearly didn't want Manning. You really think this? Are you kidding? If Manning hadn't demanded NOT to play for the Chargers, you still think he'd be in NY?

That's where your entire argument becomes invalid. This had nothing to do with value being considered too high, and everything to do with the Chargers making the best out of a "bad" situation.

They wanted the top QB. He said, "**** off." So they still took him, orchestrated a trade with NY for whom they considered, I'd imagine, the second best QB, and got something in return.

If Manning would have never mouthed off and NY really, really wanted him, SD could have taken the Giants to the cleaners.

Chiefshrink · 02-22-2009, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

The combine means in my view very little to QB's as long as they show they don't have girly arms.

Well I don't know if you saw his performance today but it bordered on "girly" for all the 'hype' this kid has been given. At least admit you somewhat have your 'rose colored Sanchez USC shades' on to a degree here

Yes I agree there are 5 o'clock hitters(batting practice) and their are gametime hitters(George Brett) Are you even old enough to know who Brett was and still is?

But mark my words we will pick Curry or trade down at this point. And we will draft a QB but it will be in the later rds and I suspect it will be someone who Pioli feels fits the Tom Brady bill that is flying under the radar.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 02-22-2009, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sportsshrink

But mark my words we will pick Curry or trade down at this point. And we will draft a QB but it will be in the later rds and I suspect it will be someone who Pioli feels fits the Tom Brady bill that is flying under the radar.

Willing to bet all of your casino cash on this?

Chiefshrink · 02-22-2009, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

I think it's funny to see anyone who supposedly followed New England rip the player that turned their franchise around.

All the down talk of Bledsoe is nothing more than the remembering of recent history and not an entire history.

I loved Bledsoe! Just too bad he got injured and got skiddish towards the end.

Mecca · 02-22-2009, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sportsshrink

Well I don't know if you saw his performance today but it bordered on "girly" for all the 'hype' this kid has been given. At least admit you somewhat have your 'rose colored Sanchez USC shades' on to a degree here

Yes I agree there are 5 o'clock hitters(batting practice) and their are gametime hitters(George Brett) Are you even old enough to know who Brett was and still is?

But mark my words we will pick Curry or trade down at this point. And we will draft a QB but it will be in the later rds and I suspect it will be someone who Pioli feels fits the Tom Brady bill that is flying under the radar.

.........Yes we're going to take a strong side LB and then watch a guy try to pull a QB out of his ass...

I will be thrilled let me tell ya...people can say what they want about any GM but if he really in his mind believes he can pull any QB out of the 6th round and make him good that is the height of arrogance.

chiefzilla1501 · 02-22-2009, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth CarlSatan

But...but...it's the only chance True Fans get to talk a lot of ignorant and useless smack because Sanchez didn't win the "Combine Bow"l!!!

Why is it ignorant to question why a potential #3 pick that you're going to pay $70M had a poor workout? It shouldn't make or break the guy, but it's most definitely worth discussing. Why even bother doing the combine if you had your mind made up before evaluating these kids?

**DeezNutz** · 02-22-2009, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

.........Yes we're going to take a strong side LB and then watch a guy try to pull a QB out of his ass...

I will be thrilled let me tell ya...people can say what they want about any GM but if he really in his mind believes he can pull any QB out of the 6th round and make him good that is the height of arrogance.

Pioli himself doesn't believe this, and he's said as much on several occasions.

He's had the luxury of drafting QB's late, b/c it's a great risk/reward, knowing more often than not he's burning the pick. But, what the ****, that's smart drafting in rounds 5-7.

Mecca · 02-22-2009, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Why is it ignorant to question why a potential #3 pick that you're going to pay $70M had a poor workout? It shouldn't make or break the guy, but it's most definitely worth discussing. Why even bother doing the combine if you had your mind made up before evaluating these kids?

I think the combine is very heavily overblown for the most part, the intelligence tests are important and some drills are but for the most part 1 bad day or 1 good day can overinflate or drop a guy to such a huge degree.

Anquan Boldin had the worst day of his life and well look how that turned out.

Chiefshrink · 02-22-2009, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Willing to bet all of your casino cash on this?

Sure if you are willing to bet all yours!

I'll take that bet!

How do you do this on the board? I have seen the 'casino cash' thing but have never attempted to bet.

Mecca · 02-22-2009, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Pioli himself doesn't believe this, and he's said as much on several occasions.

He's had the luxury of drafting QB's late, b/c it's a great risk/reward, knowing more often than not he's burning the pick. But, what the ****, that's smart drafting in rounds 5-7.

And that is kind of the point of what I said, he doesn't even believe it yet people think he does, do you realize how arrogant the man would have to be to actually believe it?

**DeezNutz** · 02-22-2009, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

And that is kind of the point of what I said, he doesn't even believe it yet people think he does, do you realize how arrogant the man would have to be to actually believe it?

Arrogance combined with an unbelievable degree of willful ignorance.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 02-22-2009, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sportsshrink

Sure if you are willing to bet all yours!

I'll take that bet!

How do you do this on the board? I have seen the 'casino cash' thing but have never attempted to bet.

I'm not giving you 4-1 odds.

We'll just say 2500 a piece. Whoever wins, we'll transfer the cash from one to the others.

Chiefshrink · 02-22-2009, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

But, what the ****, that's smart drafting in rounds 5-7.

And this is why Clark hired Scott

Chiefshrink · 02-22-2009, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

I'm not giving you 4-1 odds.

We'll just say 2500 a piece. Whoever wins, we'll transfer the cash from one to the others.

Where's your confidence now Big Dog? Come on now!!!

chiefzilla1501 · 02-22-2009, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

How many times are we going to have to go back and forth on this before you include the fact that Manning said he wouldn't play for SD?

Instead of factoring this into your analysis, you somehow state that SD clearly didn't want Manning. You really think this? Are you kidding? If Manning hadn't demanded NOT to play for the Chargers, you still think he'd be in NY?

That's where your entire argument becomes invalid. This had nothing to do with value being considered too high, and everything to do with the Chargers making the best out of a "bad" situation.

They wanted the top QB. He said, "**** off." So they still took him, orchestrated a trade with NY for whom they considered, I'd imagine, the second best QB, and got something in return.

If Manning would have never mouthed off and NY really, really wanted him, SD could have taken the Giants to the cleaners.

But you're not factoring in that a move to #1 was not just to prevent the Chargers from taking Eli Manning, it was also a move to leapfrog Oakland who had Mirer and Tuiasasopo as their top 2 QBs and Arizona who was starting Josh McCown. Do you really think the Giants wanted to take that chance?
The Chargers very aggressively shopped this offer to the Giants. The Giants did not want to give up the ridiculously high draft compensation to keep the #2 and #3 NFL teams from taking bar-none the best player in the draft.

And besides, the major point is, the Chargers got significantly less trade compensation than the trade chart would indicate and most people would claim that they won in a very big way from the trade. So if the trade chart is so right, then there is no way the Chargers should have made out well from that trade.

02-21-2009, 09:39 AM
chiefforlife Colorado Chief Fan Join Date: Feb 2006 Casino cash: $5493147	Neither Stafford or Sanchez belong in top 10 SOME DON’T VIEW STAFFORD, SANCHEZ AS TOP TEN PICKS Posted by Mike Florio on February 21, 2009, 8:21 a.m. Our initial mock draft of the year created plenty of consternation among folks who regard such matters even more importantly that some of our other readers regard their chosen religion. And, yes, we were trying to make a point with the thing. At this stage, none of the draft experts (i.e., guys who couldn’t get or hold a scouting job with an NFL team and who instead tried to create a niche in the media for the stuff no NFL team would pay them to do) know with any degree of certainty what will occur on draft day. Apart from the premature nature of prognosticating the events of late April is the fact that every NFL team makes its own decisions for its own reasons, especially in round one. Some draft based on need. Others take the best available player. And when 32 teams have different views on how those available players are ranked from best to worst, the stage is set for all sorts of screwy stuff. We could have created even more consternation by dropping Georgia quarterback Matt Stafford and USC quarterback Mark Sanchez out of the top ten. In some war rooms, it’s an accurate view of the two players. Said one source, “In other years those guys aren’t first-round picks. Stafford played well in 2007 but was horrible in 2008. He stunk in all their big games.” The source specifically pointed to the contests against Alabama, Florida, and Tennessee. Based on the numbers, Stafford was bad against Florida, mediocre against Alabama, and decent against Tennessee. “He is an average leader at best,” the source opined. “When you put a lot of pressure on him, he pees his pants. Detroit has a new front office, but if they take him then it’s the same old stuff. I guarantee that if he goes in the top 20 he will never play to the level he was drafted. “What he has is physical skills,” the source added. “He has a strong arm and is athletic but he also has poor instincts and poor decision-making.” Some might disagree with that assessment. But the point is that, when you’ve got a bunch of different folks assessing the same players, there will be significant variations from person to person. “As far as Sanchez,” the source said, “he is a more solid choice. He played in a pro style offense. He’s accurate and has a good arm. He’s smart and a leader. “The negative is he was a one-year starter. Tell me the last time a quarterback who was a one-year starter in college made it big in the NFL? Game time is huge with quarterbacks. Granted, from a money standpoint he made the right decision, but from the standpoint of having a top career, his decision has to be questioned.” (And, no, our source isn’t Pete Carroll.) So there you have it. Evidence of how the viewpoints on supposedly top players can diverge dramatically. It makes the process of predicting draft picks even more precarious. So, in the end, we think the final tally of players taken two months from now would presently seem every bit as goofy and unrealistic as some viewed our initial Pre-Combine Mock Draft.
Posts: 5,717